This article examines the way in which disputes about the ranking of chiefdoms and succession to high chiefly office have been handled in the democratic era. It focuses particularly on the extent to which these processes have been in alignment with South Africa’s democratic Constitution. It discusses the prevalence of disputes about succession and their crippling impact on local development. It argues that the current rule-based approach to adjudicating succession claims is not rooted in pre-colonial practice and custom. Its genesis lies rather in the colonial appropriation of customary law, which reified rules rather than processes and ignored the critical role that popular support played in determining succession. The article examines two case studies concerning the Pedi kingship. The cases were first adjudicated by the Traditional Leadership Disputes Commission and then appealed to higher courts. They have the advantage of relatively rich historical sources and research. In both cases, the Commission and the courts largely adopted a rule-based approach, not considering historical evidence or the role of popular struggle or support. The democratising imperatives of the Constitution have been ignored in relation to the millions of South Africans who live under the system of traditional leadership, and the political and legal dualism that underpinned apartheid remains intact. The article concludes that undoing this violation of constitutional values requires a wide-ranging debate about democracy, constitutionalism, traditional leadership and the potential wellsprings of living customary law.

本文探讨了在民主时代如何处理有关酋长等级和担任高官职位的争执。它特别关注这些进程在多大程度上与南非的民主宪法保持一致。它讨论了关于继承的争议的普遍性及其对当地发展的严重影响。它认为，目前基于规则的裁定继承权利的方法并不植根于前殖民实践和习俗。它的起源而是在于习惯法的殖民地使用，这种习惯使规则而不是程序更加具体化，并且忽略了民众支持在确定继承中所起的关键作用。本文研究了有关Pedi王权的两个案例研究。这些案件首先由传统领导权争端委员会裁决，然后上诉到高级法院。它们具有相对丰富的历史资料和研究的优势。在这两种情况下，委员会和法院在很大程度上都采用基于规则的方法，没有考虑历史证据或民众斗争或支持的作用。相对于生活在传统领导体制下的数百万南非人而言，《宪法》的民主化要求被忽略了，而种族隔离的政治和法律二元论则保持不变。文章的结论是，要消除对宪法价值的这种侵犯，就需要就民主，宪政，传统领导和生活习惯法的潜在根源展开广泛的辩论。